Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,962
- 86,230
Your entire position is a strawman. You're claiming Martin was not likely acting in self defense because he had no injuries indicating he was hit. But of course, being hit is not a requirement to justify resorting to self defense. That's a strawman. You claim I'm basing my position on race. Meanwhile, I said nothing to make this about race. That's another strawman.Great.Repeating your nonsense does not lend it credibility. Your conjecture remains based on the fallacy that you're capable of rendering a conclusion based on a "likelihood" when in fact, nothing was ever proven in regard to which one initiated the physical confrontation. You then, laughingly, extend that fallacy to justify the falsehood you portrayed earlier about Martin being a criminal, when in fact, you are merely citing yourself as the arbitrator of what you believe most likely took place. Relying on your own perspective of what occurred as evidence you are right is not all that impressive.There was absolutely nothing in the trial which proved who initiated the physical confrontation. That simply never materialized. So it remains to be nothing but conjecture on your part. And yes, you indeed expect others to accept your false claim as fact since you framed it as a basis for Obama defending Martin. Without that, your claim has no basis in reality.
Furthermore, you are again doing what you often do... build up a strawman and then attack it because you can't actually find fault in what I actually say. In this case, your strawman centers around your false claim that I complained about what Marianne said. I neither read Marianne stating what you did or did I respond to Marianne. Meanwhile, you're claim that Obama sided with a young black criminal remains as false as it did when you first offered it.
For Martin's actions to be seen as self defense, one would have to conjecture a earlier phase of the fight were Zimmerman was threatening Martin with serious harm.
Thus justifying his sitting on Zimmerman and beating him while he screamed for help. On the legal principle of NOT requiring nuanced judgement in the present of the "upheld knife" (or in this case the speculated serious ass whooping that Zimmerman would have had to be giving Martin for Martins actions to be self defense.)
But Martin has no wounds to suggest that Zimmerman was ever in that position.
My judgement is based on the actual real evidence and witnessed events.
If Zimmerman started the fight, he did so in a way that left no injuries on Martin.
I have no problem with you speculating on the periods that there were no witnesses for.
But your speculations seem based on nothing but wishful thinking on your part.
Thus, making my judgement to be the, by far, more likely scenario.
Thus, Martin was a criminal, Obama identified with him, based on Race.
Being able to reach a conclusion based on high probability is part of being a sapient being.
That you don't know this is completely credible.
That you don't know that, while holding firm to your low probability wishful thinking, just shows you to be an extreme partisan.
And you are partisan with the violent criminal.
Much like Obama. And both of you are motivated by Race.
Obama identified with the criminal based on Race.
YOu libs supported that.
Now that Marianne has done the same as Obama, now you oppose that.more strawmen ... more fallacies .... more nonsense. Meanwhile, you remain unable to prove your claim that Martin committed a crime. Way to go.
![]()
What strawman? THat your claim of self defense requires that at some point in the fight that Zimmerman was threatening Martin with serious harm?
THat's not a strawman.
It's a requirement of your self defense claim.
Though...
It is credible that you did not realize that, as you just threw it out without any serious consideration of what the implications were.
Would you like to explain how you imagine that a credible self defense claim might be made for the person sitting on top of the supposed aggressor and beating him while the supposed aggressor screamed for help?
I mean, you called my speculation a strawman, but strangely did not clarify what you supposedly, really meant.
This is all bullshit and mirrors.
Martin was the criminal. Zimmerman defended himself. YOu libs up to and including Obama sided with the criminal.
Based on Race.
And now, you don't like it when other's play the same game.
Hypocrite.
Try arguing what I'm saying -- not what you imagine I believe because I'm Liberal.